www.ted.com Bennington president Liz Coleman delivers a call-to-arms for radical reform in higher education. Bucking the trend to push students toward increasingly narrow areas of study, she proposes a truly cross-disciplinary education — one that dynamically combines all areas of study to address the great problems of our day.TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world’s leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their …
July 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
breadstick
July 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
OK, so it’s degenerated into mere name calling. Let’s see if I can remember how to play this game right… let’s see:
You are a meanie. You are not a smartie. You smell bad. Poo poo on you. Neener neener.
Was that about right? Feel free not to bother to reply. I know that I sure won’t.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
im sry
arrogant intellectual bully
aka asshole
July 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Please read the entire thread before calling me a bully. I don’t usually bother to worry about someone’s use of language until they claim to be more intelligent than me.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
intellectual bully
July 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Nice try. Keep it up check out esteembpo + com for social media marketing. czx
July 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Education is about fostering youth who are able to create knowledge as much as it is about passing knowledge on to a new generation.
Your point about democracy supports my view, not Ms Coleman’s. If individuals are allowed to choose their own education, the best ideas will gain traction over time
If, on the other hand, the majority (in terms of population or wealth) is allowed to indoctrinate minorities to accept a particular view, then scientific inquiry is stifled and progress is stymied.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
It is common practice to lump usage (collocations) under the heading of grammar, but you are correct that usage is more accurate.
One typically assures someone of a fact rather than letting them know that they can be ensured of it..
You did not make note of the missing “more” before the word “intelligent” in your previous message. I won’t remark further on numerous spelling errors that are surely typos
Also, it is better to adopt a more civil tone than simply talking about doing so.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
…relatively free of corperate influence, then no institution is,
If you wish to correct my “grammar”, you might first learn the meaning of the word, and how it differs from *usage*.
Nor is my usage incorrect; one *assures* of something, and is *ensured* of something by another.
You will also notice I corrected my elision of the word “more” before you did.
You’re right about one thing; I would probably do well to adopt a more civil tone. Take care.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
This is simply inconsistent with the very notion of education, whose function is not to confirm and reinforce commonly held beliefs; nor is truth determined democratically
Sixty percent of Americans think creation “science” schould be taught as a competeing hypothesis to the fact of evolutuion; should they have thier way?
It is no more a good idea to democratize education than surgery.
Your second point about lobbyists and special intersts is mere hyperbole.
If the university isn’t…
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Yes! Students and their families are paying for their education through taxes so they are entitled to decide what they will learn. Right now, lobbyists and special interests determine the curriculum.
Also, before claiming to be more intelligent than another person, it would help to check your grammar first. It should have been “assured” not “ensured” and it looks like you missed the word “more” as well. Better yet, stick to common courtesy and avoid such claims altogether. Take care.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
* considerably more
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
…that students are entitled to determine the curriculum?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
I watched it, and you may be firmly ensured that I am considerably intelligent than you, and so it is most unlikely that any such message escaped my notice but aroused your own.
Dewy’s phrase was a polemic metaphor, intended with no small measure of irony, and you seem tot realize this; so I’m afraid you will have to provide the requested definitions if you wish to be clearly understood (at least by me).
And again, what do you mean by “the interests” of students? Surely you don’t mean..
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
As a faculty participant in the liberal arts arena I found the presentation to be an inspiring call to arms to play an active role in changing the future of the planet. Wonderful!
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
None is expressed or implied? Perhaps you should watch again. By the interests of students I mean that what each individual student would choose for themselves. I don’t really need to define religion or dogma since Dewey himself said that educators need to act as a new kind of priesthood. He and his ilk have for the past century been working through the big foundations to get students in line with the interests of large corporations by working against the interests of students’ own families.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
*possessive determiner
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
No such idea is here expressed or implied, and your criticism -insofar as it is intelligible- is valid only if there is no meaningful distinction to be made between education and propaganda.
What precisely do you mean by the *interests* of students?
What is your definition of religion?
Of dogma?
Of whom exactly is this “secular peisthood” compirised, and against whose perogatives have they been meddling?
To whom does your possessive pronoun “our” refer?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
There really is a spirit of reinvention & renewal in many liberal arts colleges today. Some of which are beginning to apply the ideas promoted by President Coleman in this video. I for one am optimistic about the future of the liberal arts.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
point. game. match.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
oh, one more thing: I gave the video 5 stars when i wrote that first comment, so dont make this associations, I like what she’s got to say.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
and by the way, i am not making an attack on her, I think he flaw was to write it all down as if it was a book and then reading it to an audience. It is TEDTalks, not TEDreadings.
I have no intention of discrediting anything she sais, I am just giving feedback. Saying that someone’s delivery is obtrusive to the message does not in any way imply that there is a problem with the message. Get it straight techstyle.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
I knew someone would give me this kind of answer.
No, i don’t evaluate this talk on aesthetic qualities, like i said, i find the subject interesting. My evaluation of the subject: VERY INTERESTING.
My criticism: THE TALK IS DELIVERED IN SUCH A MONOTONE WAY THAT IT SEEMS DISHONET(EVEN THOUGH I AM CONVINCED THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE). AS A RESULT OF THE DELIVERY I FIND IT HARD TO CONCENTRATE ON WHAT IS BEING SAID and i find myself thinking of other things even though i am trying to listen to her
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
You evaluate this talk based almost entirely on the aesthetic qualities of the speaker’s voice and cadence of speech. You are not able to make the effort to determine the value of her ideas in spite of your particular distaste for her speaking style. You allow yourself to draw conclusions about the speaker’s personality flaws, and in doing so imply that the potential existence of those flaws is enough to discredit the ideas she expresses. In doing so you make her point for her.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Education that specializes will probably create specialists because most people don’t carry opportunities to learn very far outside their schooling.
(And)
Companies like specialists. It makes someone easy to hire if they have a degree in something where it’s “point-to-able” that they have a skill. That employee seems to a hiring manager like a safe bet.
(But)
Innovation grows always from an interdisciplinary view of things. And it’s hard to argue that the economy could use innovation.